A way to purge the Supreme Court of the radical extremists: Impose a retirement age of 70.

[LaMouffette]

That would get rid of the following corrupt justices right off the bat:

Samuel Alito, 74 years old
Clarence Thomas, 75 years old

And get rid of John Roberts (69 years old) next year.

Sadly, this would also retire Justice Sotomayor (age 69), so maybe, since I'm dreaming here, for female justices, we could make the retirement age 75, since women tend to live longer than men.

This may seem like a radical idea (especially to Alito, Thomas, and Roberts), but the majority of US states have set a mandatory age of retirement for judges. Further, the constitutionality of mandatory retirement for judges was upheld by the Supreme Court itself. From the National Center for State Courts:

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the continued use of mandatory judicial retirement ages in Missouri did not violate either the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution given that “[t]he Missouri people rationally could conclude that the threat of deterioration at age 70 is sufficiently great, and the alternatives for removal from office sufficiently inadequate, that they will require all judges to step aside at that age.”

[link:https://www.ncsc.org/information-and-resources/trending-topics/trending-topics-landing-pg/faq-which-states-have-mandatory-judicial-retirement-ages|

What's good for the goose is good for those ganders on the Supreme Court who believe that they (and Donald Trump, too, natch') are above the law.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. You and which Constitutional amendment? NT

[LaMouffette]

5. I agree. It's a long shot. A verrrrrry loooong shot. But I just did some googling and found out how the 27th Amendment

finally became ratified. You may already know (I didn't) that the 27th Amendment states that any increase or decrease in Congress members' salaries will not take effect until after the following election.The amendment made it through Congress in 1789, but was not ratified by enough states until 1992! It's quite an interesting story. I have edited out parts to try to stay within the DU limits:

In 1982, the [27th] Amendment was languishing before the states with only a tiny fraction of the number of states needed to ratify having ratified it. That year Gregory Watson, a sophomore at the University of Texas, was assigned to write a paper about a government process. He came across a chapter in a book on the Constitution, listing proposed constitutional amendments that had not been ratified. He wrote his paper on the congressional pay amendment, arguing that there was no time limit on when it could be ratified, and that it could be ratified now. He got a C on the paper. [...] “I thought right then and there, ‘I’m going to get that thing ratified.’”

Watson sent letters around the country to state legislators, who mostly ignored his idea. But Maine Senator William Cohen liked the idea—and he pushed it and it passed in Maine in 1983. After that, Watson kept pushing, and the Amendment picked up steam.

The fact of the Amendment’s passage through Congress in 1789 and of its non-ratification by the states came to public attention in the 1980s when there was tremendous popular disapproval of the performance of the Congress and the exorbitant salaries and fringe benefits members of Congress enjoyed. As a result, a campaign was launched to get three-quarters of the states to ratify the Amendment over the totality of the period between 1789 and the present day. In 1985, five states passed it, and by 1992, the 38 states needed for full ratification had all passed the Amendment. Thus, the three-quarters of the states’ consensus required by Article V of the Constitution was finally reached in 1992—more than 202 years after Congress had proposed the Amendment. The Archivist of the United States declared the Amendment to be legally ratified, and, subsequently, Congress on May 20, 1992, declared the ratification to be legal and the Amendment to be part of the Constitution.

[link:https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxvii/interpretations/165|

So yes, a 28th Amendment to set a mandatory age limit on Supreme Court Justices can be done . . . it will just take 200 years do it!!!!

[FBaggins]

2. It isn't a radical idea... merely an unconstitutional one

the constitutionality of mandatory retirement for judges was upheld by the Supreme Court itself.

Sure... for those states that don't have the federal constitutional provision giving them lifetime tenure.

[LaMouffette]

6. It's only unconstitutional until it becomes constitutional. But I agree that this idea is a very long shot.

[FBaggins]

10. How does it "become constitutional"???

You realize that the majority you're trying to bust on the SCOTUS... are the ones with the final say?

You're surely not saying that you think the votes to amend the constitution exist, right?

[Polybius]

3. Stop

We don't have anywhere near 67 votes to pass this, let alone 2/3rds of the House and 38 states.

[LaMouffette]

7. Not yet we don't. But maybe with Roevember's Blue Wave coming . . . Still, you're absolutely right that at present,

there is no shot in hell. But see my response to mahatmajeeves above about the 27th Amendment, which gives a teeny-tiny bit of hope.

[FBaggins]

11. There is no blue wave that gets us to 67 senate seats.

If we win 100% of the races we're still several short... and we're far more likely to lose seats than pick even one up (let alone 16).

[Polybius]

15. We'll never have 67 votes

Feel free to bookmark, and check back in 2, 8, 15, 25, and 40 years from now.

[tinrobot]

4. I'd prefer a fixed term for judges

One proposal I saw was 18 year terms, staggered by two years.

With 9 justices, that means each president gets two picks per term.

[LaMouffette]

8. I like that idea, too. Seeing as how it looks like most of the current SC Justices were appointed in their fifties, that

would be roughly the same as a mandatory retirement age of 70 (with a carve-out for Justice Sotomayor of age 75! )

[LostOne4Ever]

9. If we are imagining theoretical amendments to change the court:

These are what I’d suggest

1) Every SC justice serves one AND ONLY ONE term.

2) Supreme Court terms last for a number of years equal to two times the total number of SC justices.

3) Terms are staggered such that a new judge would be appointed every 2 years with the appointment and confirmation of new judges being the very first thing congress must take up and finish before any other non-war time legislation.

4) Each judge must also nominate their own juniors (a first junior and a second) who would take their place should anything happen to the judge preventing them from doing their duties or finishing their term including death. These Juniors must be confirmed with the judge during the confirmation hearing. Should the first Junior have to permanently take over the term as the huge The first Junior is promoted to judge and the 2nd Junior is promoted to first Junior and the new judge must nominate a new second Junior.

5) Any judge that gets promoted to full judge is eligible for being nominated and appointed to a second term if and only if they served less than half of the original judge’s term.

6) The most senior judge on the SC would be the Supreme Justice with no judge allowed to take the position for more than one two year term.

7) Congress can void any ruling by the court if both houses can get a 55% majority vote and the president’s signature. OR a 60% majority vote of both houses. This is not a reversal so much as nullifying the ruling as though the case was never heard. The SC can rehear the case after two years time.

8) The president can force one case before the court of their choosing per year for a full hearing.

9) The court must decide on a code of ethics including situations where a judge must recuse themselves and situations warranting complete removal from the court by 2/3 or higher vote which must be approved by congress and the president before taking up any case.

[hr]
- - -

Reason why I suggest these specific suggestions beyond getting rid of radicals:

Since there are currently 9 justices the term would be 18 years, and if increased to 11 justices then they would all serve 22 years meaning 4 years would be added to each judges term. This would give EVERY congress a say in shaping the court and result in a court more representative of the American people and their votes.

Every president would get two nominees per term preventing situations like we had were Trump (a one termer) got 3 picks, as did Obama despite serving TWO terms, and Carter getting no picks.

It would prevent the court from being drastically changed just because a justice died for whatever reason. The will of the people would remain.

It would also add more checks and balances to the SC by both congress and the president and create a code of ethics the court must abide by.

[LaMouffette]

16. All excellent and well-thought-out ideas! Definitely agree that there need to be more checks and balances on the SC.

I mean, Clarence Thomas should have been kicked off the SC for accepting all those gifts, but the only way to remove a Justice is through impeachment, and if the majority party in Congress puts party, power, and their own self-interest over country, then impeachment, conviction, and removal is not going to happen, just like with Trump's non-conviction.

Sometimes I seriously think that we would be better off putting brainy and idealistic college students in Congress and on the Supreme Court for a single six-year term than we are with the mess of cynical, greedy, power-hungry career politicians zealously guarding their elected positions (I'm referring, of course, to the majority of Republicans, and not to our lovely Democratic Congress members, with a few notable exceptions (Manchin, Sinema, Menendez).

[Kennah]

12. The Purge: Supreme Court Edition

[LiberalFighter]

13. I would like to change the pensions of Supreme Court Justices.

Unlike the claims of people that members receive a lifetime pension equal to their salary at retirement. Supreme Court Justices do receive a pension equal to their salary.

Their pension should be based on the same criteria for federal government employees.

[hardluck]

14. As previously mentioned, it would be unconstitutional

It would be easier to reduce the cases decided by the USSC to its original jurisdiction as enumerated in the Constitution:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Then have Congress create a new appellate court that will hear all other appeals other than what falls under the USSC original jurisdiction. Then stack it as you see fit. Totally partisan solution and guaranteed to case strife but at least it’s constitutional.